Illegal Downloaders Spend More Money On Music Comments

So by fighting files sharers and trying to end piracy.. they are effectively aiming to reduce their profits by over 50%. Hahahaha, that's funny.

I hardly see it as a wake up call. Similar results have come to light before yet they choose to ignore them. They're just greedy.
Right, now to play with their own numbers a bit (which I know were already shown to be fudged, but then I'm not trying to be terribly accurate):
The Gov claims there are 7 million illegal file-sharers in Britain. Cool, so going by this report, that's 7x77 = £539 million revenue from these people who should be punished. And that's just music.

They're (and by they, I mean Mandy) just being really closed-minded about this; for reasons I don't even have the time to go into.

I spend so much money on music I don't really want to think about it.

I go to 2 or 3 gigs a month on average, and most of the time it's to see relatively obscure bands I'd never have discovered if I'd had to pay to have their music. I'm contributing thousands a year to the music industry, and it's BECAUSE I have free access to their music.

I'm absolutely certain I'm not unique in this in the slightest.

Brilliant... and if the survey had concluded that shoplifters spent more on shopping would you be tacitly legitimizing that too?

Apologies for being a pedant, but a more accurate conclusion of this survey would be "Self-confessed illegal downloaders spend more money on music". If 50% of the 900 who denied downloading illegally were actually lying because they were too ashamed to admit it, then the average amount spent per month by illegal downloaders would be significantly less.

Irrespective of this, the record companies have to face up to the fact that the world has changed and they need to adapt instead of moan about lre's very little they can do to change the landscape they now find themselves in.

You (TR) make an interesting point in your graphic with miss-spellings and colloquial English. I do wonder if many such illlegal (sic) file-sharers are as poorly educated as your graphic suggests....

Just ask the poor government scientist about what speaking the truth gets you - fired lol! If it doesn't put money in the right pockets while conveying a pre-determined message, it's wrong. End of story as far as they seem to see it..

It SHOULD be a wake up call, but will the Government hear it? Not likely. They are rarely troubled by little things like facts. In light of recent events, maybe some of the government's technology advisers will mention this survey and get themselves fired for trying to have a rational debate...

drdark I must disagree about Mandelson being closed-minded; he is open to any and all opportunities to feather his nest. This may be the solution: If all file-sharers contribute a couple of pounds then we can probably come up with a suitably large bribe (don't forget the free holiday) to get the policies we want... ;)

Its strange to believe that at the beginning of this decade the normal price of an album was around £14.99, despite the costs of production and copying the data nowhere near that price. There have been countless attempts to double dip from the consumer, making them purchase multiple copies of the same work. Bringing out "special" editions of albums by simply adding a "bonus" track and charging £18.99 for it.

Imagine if for every generation handed down their music and this music was shared with every member in that family. Isn't this illegal file sharing, but at what point can the record companies prosecute for this? "Piracy" is unstoppable in an age where you can copy digital content easily. If this is a given, then why are record companies wasting time protecting traditional distribution channels. Look to the future!

In the future I imagine people to look back on copyright infringement and intellectual property rights and laugh at how slow reform was. Instead you'll be renting the use of everything from music to games and physically owning things like records will make you look like an antique collector.

@Gordon LOL. Yup, kinda knew where you were coming from. Clearly my slanted sarcasm was perhaps to subtle! However, glad we agree non the less.

I would like to think I am a fairly typical user. I regularly (several times per week) download content from P2P sites. Very little of this (in size terms) is music though.

For music, I have no particular taste. I listen to what I like, and this can be several genres. I often see an advert on TV, run Shazam, and see who it is. I then download it, and if I like it, I buy it. This could be an album or a single track.

Music isn't the main issue though. I download far more TV / movie content than music. In the past year or so, I've downloaded countless productions - films and TV shows like House, CSI, Stargate, BSG - too numerous to count them all.

Invariably, I end up buying them on DVD. I download to get them as soon as they're available. The UK is normally delayed.

If these shows were not delayed for the UK, I'd watch them in the UK, along with all the advertising, and still buy them on a ratio not altered; CSI I can live without, BSG and Stargate I must have.

Films are the same. I'm an avid film consumer, and visit the cinema at least every week. It is odd that I can pay £12 or whateve it is to Cineworld and watch as much as I want, yet for music, this somehow isn't allowed. I download films that I wouldn't normally pay to watch in the cinema, but which aren't going to be released on DVD in the UK for several months.

Publishers of any content really should take note. People like me will pay for what they want. We don't expect to be kept waiting because we're in a different country. If I want to see it in a concert or a cinema, I'll pay a premium. A word of warning though - if you don't sort it out, I'll be quite happy to keep downloading, and for every one of me that does actually buy stuff, there will be 20 who don't pay for anything at all.

If you want to sell something, sell it properly, and stop using business models developed in the 1930s.

I'll be honest. Until I started using sites like Spotify (and its iPhone app in particular) and Napster I genuinely downloaded any album that was awarded 7/10 or higher by NME (apart from R&B, rap, and head bashing music). This means I was downloading a heap every month. But, I would listen to these albums and the ones that I liked (usually 1 in 4) would be bought and the rest would just fester away somewhere in the music library and would be removed from the iPod to save space.

For a time, illegal downloading was a great means for me to spend my money wisely. I had moved out of the parents and thus didnt have the £3-400 a month to spend on albums and needed a way to trim it down. Some albums (think prog-rock type) cannot be sold by listening to a 30 second preview clip from Amazon/iTunes so I chose to download and pick more wisely.

With the streaming industry taking off I personally think people have little excuse to illegally download now. Especially when considering Spotify's free service. But each to there own.

Greg makes some valid points. A lot of his downloading mirrors my actions. I think it is only a matter of time before proper tv/movie streaming (think Spotify for movies!) will happen. Id happily pay £20 a month if I could get access to most movies/tv whenever I like (£30 for HD?). I know there are service like this in existence from Virgin and the likes but I mean a proper film/tv library, no 12 month contracts and a quick and user intuitive interface. Streaming is the future of home entertainment I reckon.

Yet another wake-up call that will be blatantly ignored by the music industry.

Ok what they also fail to take into account here is sales from tickets to gigs/ merchandise etc etc
I'm a self confessed gig addict and I can safely say were it not for illegal downloading of music then I probably wouldn't have discovered 90% of the bands I've been to see never mind actually gone and watched them and brought a t-shirt etc
I'll buy a cd if it's on sale at £5 but whilst all the companies keep charging £11 for new releases or bringing out special editions 6 months after initial release I'll stick to the illegal downloading and they can get my money through ticket sales and merchandise!

@Jones:With the streaming industry taking off I personally think people have little excuse to illegally download now. Especially when considering Spotify's free service. But each to there own.

I'm with you on this one, I'm currently a premium Spotify user. If I could say pay another £20 per month to have the same level of service for Films/TV shows etc, then I can't see any reason why I'd need to illegally download anything.

Currently I must spend at most £50 per year for CD/DVD's, now @ £30 per month that's £360 :). I could also then save £139.50 on not having a TV licence. BBC = repeats now anyway.

@dave - Unfortunately it is a complete myth that bands make money from touring/gig ticket sales. You forget, or maybe weren't ever aware, that bands traditionally tour in order to promote their music and get people to buy their CDs. Unless you're Metallica or U2, touring isn't a way to make a living. Saying you don't need to buy CDs because you go to gigs instead is an excuse many illegal downloaders use with great regularity, but it doesn't really help the smaller bands.

@Metalex: I'm sorry, but how can something be a complete myth if it's the commonly held view which I've read about in most articles? I'm no expert on the matter, and please don't take this as an attack as I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule, but could we have some examples?
Ta.

@drdark - Why do I need to give examples? Think of any small, underground or even medium sized band struggling to sell music and not selling out gigs at every venue, then you'll get the picture. Anyway, you wanted a specific example, so read this forum post by Mikael Akerfeldt of Opeth. Not the biggest band in the world, but they have a pretty loyal worldwide following and are one of the most influential metal bands around today: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/opeth-archived/512589-mike-ipods-4.html#post8434576

Now, can I have some links to the articles you have read?

Here is a simple (albeit a fairly isolated example) of my frustration with the whole music industry at the moment:

I recently wanted to get a new album by a fairly unknown band.
- First looked at the CD and for some reason it was around £15 on most sites. Forget that, I don't want it that much!
- iTunes, yes it is there at normal £7.99. But, I won't use them as I don't want their DRM'd AAC crap. No thanks.
- Amazon MP3 UK. They don't have it
- 7Digital. Same
- Amazon MP3 US. They have it at good price. Great! "Buy".....Sorry, for US only. Oh FFS.

....Getting fed up now.

.....and guess where I could easily get it in exactly the format I wanted. Yep, that well known Swedish Torrent site. Jeez.

So, Mr Music Industry that is why you fail! All your stupid rules, restictions and everything else that you do to rip off the consumer. It's such a mess.

@Keith - Would be nice, but I think Sky may have something to say about any "on demand" service for movies that only costs £20! They already charge a lot more than that for their standard TV movie channels! And as such, because the movie industry get so much money from Sky, I am sure they will not be keen to give that revenue up in a hurry!

@Steve32 - you realise that iTunes is DRM-free now, don't you?

@Metalex - Ahhh, is it? No, I didn't know that. I thought it was only the "high quality" (i.e. more expensive!) stuff that was DRM free. Even then I believe they tag the files with your account information. I have nothing to hide, but out of principle that just winds me up! It certainly isn't obviousy in iTunes if something is DRM'd or not!

With good old MP3's you know where you stand. You know they will work in pretty much anything. And, my collection is all MP3 so I want to stick with that. So, my position remains the same with iTunes - No Thanks!

@Metalex: Like I said above, I'm no expert, and sadly have never heard of Opeth (but thanks, I'll check them out). However, I just recall reading things along those lines more than once. I did a quick search and here's what was thrown up. The general consensus seems to be that selling Records/CDs hardly ever made any money for any band no matter how far back you look:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13526_3-10369956-27.html
http://www.pampelmoose.com/2009/02/how-bands-can-make-more-money-by-not-putting-a-price-on-a-cd
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080402093357AAO5RJ7
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/20830491/rocks_new_economy_making_money_when_cds_dont_sell/print
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/trent-reznor-backs-chris-andersons-theory-of-free/

Re: iTunes. I thought only some tracks were DRM-free. Not sure if they're clearly marked. Anyone here not an Apple-Hater that can verify? Cub?

@steve32: buy it from itunes then right click and select convert to mp3 (set mp3 as your default CD rip in settings first), job done no personal info and no tagging needed either

@drdark - I don't see anything in those links that show touring is a definitive moneymaker for bands. Some of the luckier, larger bands may be able to, but most smaller/medium bands don't have the ability or financial banking to tour endlessly. Making a profit out of touring is the exception, not the rule. Besides, there was a time when people would pay for music AND concert tickets. If selling albums isn't important to artists and all their money is made from touring, why do so many of them oppose illegal downloading and claim it is destroying their livelihoods? It's not just a matter of money either, as many artists complain about the lack of control they have when their music is distributed illegally. They no longer decide through what channels their music is to be distributed.

I fear it's a losing battle when so many people have a sense of entitlement to free music. Watching a Newsnight clip about Pirate Bay, I saw guy at a Swedish music festival claim that it was his human right to download music for free! I mean, seriously... When you're dealing with spongers like that, what hope have the artists got?

With regard to iTunes, yes, as far as I know all tracks are now 256kbps DRM-free. As Jay said to Steve32, you can easily convert AAC downloads to MP3, although I'm not sure why you'd necessarily want to, as AAC is a higher quality format when compared to MP3 at the same bit rates, and has other technical advantages.

@Metalex, already explained why I don't want AAC. Not arguing that technically it is better, but all my collection is MP3 and I know pretty much anything will play them. I am not sure that is the case with AAC. I just know where I stand with MP3 and that is what I am comfortable with. Simple as that really.

Didn't realise iTunes allowed you to convert AAC to MP3 so easily - as I said I don't have any AAC. But I will look into that. It is still bloody hassle I would rather do with out.

The bottom line is that the music industry has been too slow in moving with the times and basically they have made the situation so much worse for themselves. Had they embraced technology from the outset and worked with it, rather than against it, then whole culture of music downloading could well have been different now. The fact is that they scared many people off (CD's that shagged peoples computers anyone, DRM, DRM, DRM!) that it is now the accepted norm to get it for nothing. Not saying it is right, but that is where we are now. I do feel sorry for the artists but I have little sympathy for the record labels. If there is no money in making music in the future, then so be it! I am sure people will still make music just for the love - they just won't all become millionaires! Not the first industry to have gone through that - welcome to the real world!

@Metalex: I already said I was no expert on the matter and that there were exceptions to every rule (the rule being that the commonly held opinion is actually that touring can make a lot of money for bands. I've seen this used as an example for the Freemium economy explained by Chris Anderson - editor of Wired US edition).

In any case, you seem to have misquoted me. What I pointed out those articles mostly agreed upon was, and I quote: "general consensus seems to be that selling Records/CDs hardly ever made any money for any band no matter how far back you look" (and by how far back I meant references to the 80s).

As for artists complaining about lack of control. If the ARTISTS actually complained about that then they're bloody stupid. The more of their music is out there the better. The only ones actually complaining are the music INDUSTRY fat cats. They're the only ones who could ever be concerned about having less control over music distribution, so I think you're either getting confused or have been reading some seriously skewed articles yourself.

Do I think I'm "entitled" to free music? No. Nothing should be totally free. But I also don't see 100% piracy rates of music either. To put it simply, with the advent of the internet and heck I'll even throw in cheaper international calls and txting, TV, mobile phones etc.(oh, and Twitter) the audience experiencing any band's music has probably quadrupled at least. And yes I am guessing here because I don't have the figures. But where you could only reach 1000 people before, you can now reach 100, 000. The only difference is the blinkered view of the music industry.
Taking the previous example. 1000 people. Say 500 buy a CD, that's 50%.
Now, an audience of 100, 000. 10,000 buy a CD. Way more than before. But oh wait, that's just 10%. The rest are PIRATES and are stealing from us!
No they're not, they just chose not to buy it. Before they could experience it on the radio or in a club or at a mate's house or they'd get a copy made.
And even those who download songs often then buy the full album as a gift for other people (yes I have first-hand accounts of this).

Basically, the market is bigger. The percentages are smaller. The fat cats are greedy, and it's all number-fudging. I'm really sorry that some artists get caught up in this, but it's their fault for signing up to a rip-off deal with a record company. They should show them either salute requiring 1-2 amount of fingers as preferred and join the 21st Century.

Rant over, and Lord Mandelson can f*ck off, too.

P.S. This was not a personal attack. Please have a nice day, and enjoy your weekend (responsibly).

I'd agree that record companies have been slow to move with the times and certainly aren't blameless in all of this.

drdark, you say this is a commonly held opinion, but whose opinion is it, and does this opinion mean it's a fact? Of course, if planned well, promoted well and backed financially, touring COULD become profitable, but the reality for many bands is that it isn't. Whether someone has an opinion that touring could make money is besides the point, as many bands claim that the reality is very different. It certainly wasn't my intention to misquote you, I was simply asking for convincing evidence that touring is somehow a magical alternative to CD sales and will make everything OK again for struggling artists who are suffering because of illegal downloading - afterall I was responding to a point about gig tickets sales and I thought you were too. I've yet to see any evidence of this from anyone.

In terms of control, I can only go on what I've read from some artists in general, but many have said that THEY want to decide if their music is distributed freely on the internet, not some guy who has ripped a CD and put it on to a P2P network. Of course exposure can help, but should it not be up to the artist to decide that?

Your speculative figures on percentages and sales figures sound very nice, but until it happens, it's only potential. There's much to be proved in terms of whether the fact more people can be reached will result in higher sales. As long as music is available for free, then people will steal it rather than paying for it, so maybe preventative measures are required to stop this. Until then, artists are struggling and record shops are closing.

@Metalex:
I keep repeating that I'm no expert because I'm not what you'd call an audiophile and am certainly not up to date with all the latest bands. So, I've been hoping someone with the relevant knowledge would step in and provide a bit more exact detail. I'm already locked into heated conversations about the gaming industry killing itself, and only felt the need to speak up here since "filesharers" and "pirates" are often grouped into the same box.

Having said that, in regards to your final paragraph, I can provide official figures provided by the industry itself which partially prove my point. And they were supplied by this very site:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/news/2009/01/16/95--Music-Downloads-Illegal--Industry-Grows-Nevertheless/p1

Now, despite that report's sensationalist headline (95% and whatnot), the key is in the paragraph before last:
[Quote]
On top of this the IFPI admits the digital music business internationally "saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value" and that "recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined."
[/Quote]

I think I've now babbled enough on this topic, so best be on my way. Live long and prosper.